What would you give up to stay home?

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-08-2004
What would you give up to stay home?
1422
Sat, 08-05-2006 - 8:36am

Hi everyone.

I have always said that staying home is so important to me that I would give up many things to be able to do that. We live in a very small home, I have no jewelry and we buy all our clothes at Walmart. I know that if I went back to work, we could afford more. But I would never trade being at home for a larger house or more luxuries.

However, after reading this board I have started to suspect that there are things I would not want to give up. If I couldn't send my kids to preschool a couple of hours a day, if I couldn't afford any after school activities like ballet lessons or if I could'nt afford any kind of summer program for them, I think I would have to find a way to go back to work. So basically, I'm perfectly happy to deny myself "things." But I would not want to take much away from the kids.

Of course I would probably have to find a new career becuase I could never work the 80 hours a week my old career entailed.

Lilypie Baby Ticker

Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:43am
Not without masks and gloves and such. She rarely goes out.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:43am
ITA. I is amazing how some people only value themselves in terms of salary.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:46am

No, kids don't make economic sense but kids don't need a SAHM either. So the fact kids don't make economic sense doesn't enter into the picture unless you're talking about being able to afford a more enriched environment for them.

Yes, it's about life, however, you have to be able to support yourself both now and in the future in life. What if your husband decided he wanted to take a job picking up golf balls so he could be outdoors all day making minimum wage. That would be a decision about life but a foolish one none the less. Some decisions we are faced with in life simply don't make sense to act upon.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:49am
I'm fully aware of that but attitude counts here. The attitude of someone who never left their career is different than someone who did. You are more likely to pass your attitude about waork (as something to be done only when convenient in the case of someone who quits then goes back) than anything else to your children.
iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:51am

You keep brining up women over 50 living in poverty. How many of those women have college educations?? There are more women entering college than men. I think I read something like 55% of those entering college are female.

That is a huge difference than those over 50. Woemn did not go to college at the rate they do now. SAH was expected of these women. it is not expected at all now. It is way choice rather than an expectation.

I know very few women who sah based solely on a "feeling". Most of my sah have at least a 4 year degree (most have their master's). They can support themeselves but choose to sah for at least 5-7 years.

iVillage Member
Registered: 11-18-2005
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:53am
Exactly. Most kids in my older dd's school have mothers who went back to school when they entered kindergarten. Who knows how many of those in the study had a sahm's until they entered school.
iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 7:58am

I agree. My kids are not replications of me, they are themselves. All I can do is offer them learning situations. What they take from them is theirs. I'm not foolish enough to think that any amount of work on my part can make them turn out this way or that way. My job as a parent is to help them fiture out who they are and help them learn to work with what they have.

The first 5 years are the least of my worries. As long as my kids have good care and are exposed to good environments, that works out on it's own. It's not like the kids of WOHM's develop this type of personality and the kids of SAHM's another. Working status has nothing to do with this. Quality of environments does.

Now those pre teen years, that's another story, IMO. Then they are interacting with peers (who I believe have more influence on how my kids turn out than I do) and making decisions that will impact them the rest of their lives. I feel a need to know who their peers are and what they're up to at all times as well as have "what if" discussions with them so that they are prepared for situations that will come up. From a parenting perspective, it is now that I feel most needed. I didn't feel needed at all when my dd was 11 months old. I realized that just about anyone could have filled my shoes back then. Now, my dd needs someone around who cares enough about her to understand her and help her understand herself and the world she's growing up to enter.

I really don't understand the preoccupation with the first 5 years. All that's needed for good development then is a good enviroment and good care and there are a many different ways to provide that. Now, my dd's need direction and people who understand who they are. Still, I don't think I determine who they turn out to be. Rather, I think I help them grow into who they are and manage any issues they need to manage stemming from who they are.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 8:03am

If it's the study I'm thinking of, it said any non maternal care, including grandma and Aunt Suzy. What's funny is people look at this as non maternal care causing aggression when it's the other way around. Maternal care stifles it. Once kids start school, the difference disappears. You're just seeing it earlier in kids in other care, which is not an issue considering that all levels of aggression were normal and by the middle of grade school any difference goes away.

What this study says is that kids in other care are more likely to exhibit normal levels of aggression, which to me makes sense given that the environment would be more predictable if you only have one caregiver. Ok, where's the problem? Now if they were talking abut abnormal levels of aggression that lasted until high school, I might get concerned. However, something like 83% of the kids didn't exhibit aggressive tendencies. I believe that's close to the adult population that doesn't.

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-06-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 8:07am

Actually, it's most likely your attitude about work that will be passed to your kids. If your attitude is it's something you do when it's convenient vs. it's something that is important enough to protect the future of, you send a different message. I don't believe it's the physical act of working itself but rather they attitude of the mother towards work.

I think this is similar to the books vs. reading to kids issue. It turns out it's not how often you read to your kids but rather how many books you own that correlates to educational outcomes with kids. People who own books value them and education. Kind of a put your money where your mouth is situation. If it's parents attitudes and not actions that matter in areas like this, why wouldn't I think it's attitude not actions WRT working and the self esteem boost for dd's.

Forgive me but I don't recall having discussed this with you before. So if this may be a repeat of an earlier post.

iVillage Member
Registered: 05-14-2006
Sun, 08-13-2006 - 8:17am

I gave two specific examples from my own life (there were many more) plus many exapmles of possible reasons for a SAHM to not be able to be there in the after school time frame.

"The main difference, that you keep ignoring is this..WOHP X2 can mean the kid(s) know that there are big chunks of time where said kids are home, and parents are not."

I am not ignoring that because that was never part of this discussion. The discussion was about SAHP being home when their kids get home from school.

Pages